## Facts

- Canadian authorities sought Yves Parisien’s arrest in Brazil on five Canadian fraud counts.
- Canada and Brazil lacked an extradition treaty but executed an extradition arrangement under which Canada undertook not to try or imprison Parisien for other pre-surrender acts beyond the specified charges.
- Brazil surrendered Parisien to Canada, where he was tried and sentenced on the five fraud counts.
- After he completed that sentence, prosecutors advised Parisien that additional pre-extradition charges would be pursued.
- Parisien left Canada freely to travel abroad and later voluntarily returned to Canada.
- Upon his return, he was charged by a new information with thirty-nine additional offenses committed before his extradition.

## Issues

1. Whether the specialty clause in the Canada–Brazil extradition arrangement permanently barred Canada from prosecuting Parisien for other pre-surrender offenses beyond the five fraud counts.
2. Whether specialty-based immunity expires once the extradited person has had a reasonable opportunity to return to the surrendering state and voluntarily remains in or returns to the requesting state.
3. How an extradition arrangement is to be interpreted in light of general international-law principles and its object and purpose.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
- The Court held that the arrangement’s specialty protection was not perpetual.
- Canada’s undertaking did not immunize Parisien from prosecution after he had a reasonable opportunity to return to Brazil.
- Because Parisien was free to leave and did leave, then voluntarily returned to Canada, prosecution on the thirty-nine additional pre-surrender charges did not breach the undertaking.
- The proceedings on the additional charges were permitted to continue.

## Legal Principles

- The rule of specialty generally prevents the requesting state from prosecuting an extradited person for other pre-surrender offenses beyond those for which surrender was granted.
- Specialty-based immunity is temporally limited and ordinarily ends once the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to return to the surrendering state and instead voluntarily remains in, or returns to, the requesting state.
- Extradition arrangements must be interpreted contextually, in light of their object and purpose and general principles of international law, including an interpretive preference for minimum necessary constraints on state sovereignty consistent with honoring the undertaking.
- In the case of conflict between a specific extradition arrangement governing a surrender and domestic extradition legislation, the arrangement may control for that surrender as the governing international undertaking.

## Conclusion

The Court allowed Canada to proceed on additional pre-extradition charges because specialty protection under the Canada–Brazil arrangement ended once Parisien had a reasonable opportunity to return to Brazil and voluntarily returned to Canada, making the later prosecution consistent with Canada’s undertaking.


R. v. Parisien, 1 S.C.R. 950 (Can. 1988)